Here are a couple responses to questions asked under the post of the ESV committee's video. First the question, then my response. (TB)
Is every use of the word "slave" now going to be changed to "servant"?
No, they are doing this gradually. Words indicating the ownership of men will be removed from Scripture at about the same rate as words indicating the federal headship of Adam (male inclusives such as 'adam' and 'adelphoi'). As mentioned above, footnotes often show...
...it sounds to me not that they're trying to change the meaning of the Bible, but trying to use words that will best bring to mind in the modern reader, what the original reader would have thought of.
Actually, not. Here are the money quotes.Those opposed to removing the Greek 'doulos' from their English text say:
"It you look at the dictionaries, it's quite clear that the person is owned... I think we're getting confused and reluctant to use the word 'slave' because we think that because there is the word 'slaves,' that the Old Testament approves of slavery. And I think it's very much better to say that the Old Testament is trying to improve the life of slaves, rather than pretending they're not slaves.'
Wayne then argues in favor of removing the Greek 'doulos' from their English text because:
"The word 'slave' has irredeemably negative associatons and connotations."
Wayne follows his foundational reason for deleting God's word with a bunch of stuff like slavery wasn't racial way back then, but all the stuff amounts to nothing more than feathers in the air in an effort to obscure the central fact of slavery's "irredeemably negative associations and connotations." Until wise men see this ordering principle of modern Bible mistranslation, they won't understand anything about the Bible business. Scholars flown around the world and paid to produce new Bible products have great motivation to...what?
To produce new Bible products.
And what is the main concern with language in our age?
It's to avoid offense. The postmodern man is effeminate and demands that language be used that doesn't hurt anyone. Thus we see that modern Bible translations' reason to exist is their bowdlerizing the Word of God at the crunch points of political correctness, at the places where the postmodern's hypersensitivity demands that he find the language a "safe place."
Thus one of the men in this clip has argued with me, personally, that "almost all modern scholars" believe the Gospel of John's use of 'Ioudaioi' should be translated "Jewish leaders" instead of "Jews." And note that we live in a post-Holocaust world in which every educated man is deathly afraid of being perceived as anti-Semitic.
Thus another of the men in this clip has argued with those of us who wrote and adopted the Colorado Springs Guidelines (on the use of the male inclusive in Bible translation) that 'adelphoi' (Greek 'brothers' used all over the Epistles) should be translated "brothers and sisters." In other words, he opposed God's use of 'adelphoi' as a male inclusive in English translations. And note that we live in a feminist world in which every educated man is deathly afraid of being perceived as "insensitive to the legitimate concerns of women who have been oppressed by patriarchs across all ages."
Thus all of these men in this clip have continued to gag God's words 'grawdeiv muyouv' in 1Timothy 4:7. They replace it with nothing. It's simply gone. Here the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to command Pastor Timothy to have nothing to do with "old women's tales." But that command is removed from the ESV. And note that we live in a feminist world in which every educated man is deathly afraid of being perceived as "insensitive to the legitimate concerns of women who have been oppressed by patriarchs across all ages."
Thus all of these men in this clip have continued to gag God's word 'malakoi' in 1Corinthians 6:9. They replace it with nothing. It's simply gone. Here the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to warn the Christians in Corinth that catamites (male call-boys or the effeminate partner in sodomitic copulation) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. And note that we live in a sodomitic world in which every educated man is deathly afraid of being perceived as "insensitive to the legitimate concerns of gays who have been oppressed by Christian bigots across all ages."
Thus these men in this clip have voted to gag God's words 'doulos' in multiple places. They replace ownership with wages. In many places across Scripture the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture's authors to use the word 'slave,' but these men paid by Wheaton's Crossway Publishers remove it. And note that we live in a pluralistic and diverse culture in which every educated man is deathly afraid of doing anything at all that could ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever cause others to think that he or his Bible product is to the slightest degree "racist."
We could go on, but I grow weary. As I've pointed out before, there is great consistency in the direction of all Bible products today, including the latest revision of the New International Version, the latest revision of the Living Bible (the New Living Translation), and the latest revision of the Revised Standard Version (the English Standard Version). All owners of copyright on Bible products today are paying academics to pedal hard to keep ahead of charges of anti-Semitism, patriarchalism, homophobia, and racism.
So no, the point of updated products is not to communicate accurately the offensive and insensitive and negative and direct and manly and insightful and wise and highly charged things that the Holy Spirit has said in His Word. Rather, the point is to keep the men paid to produce these Bible products from appearing insensitive or unenlighted or backward or uneducated or hickish or redneckish or Deliverancish or benighted or uncultured or American or antebellum or uncontextualized or unmissional or unGospel-centered or graceless or ham-fisted or primitive or impolite or dimwitted or catachrestic or obtuse or cretinous (w/thanks to the Apostle Paul) or imbecilic or nescient or insufficiently progressive.
The best explanation of these bowdlerizations of the Word of God is not a concern for accuracy, but scholars' phobia of being thought insufficiently progressive.
